On March 1, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously invalidated twelve Virginia state house legislative districts in Bethune-Hill v Virginia State Board of Elections, 15-680. The basis for the decision is that the legislature relied too heavily on race when it drew the boundaries. The decision says that the state’s excuse, that all the districts at issue comport with traditional good districting practices (such as compactness, and respecting county and city boundaries), is not good enough. States must not depend too heavily on race when they draw boundaries.

On March 10, a 3-judge U.S. District Court invalidated three U.S. House districts in Texas. That case is Perez v Abbott, western district, SA-11-cv-360. The vote was 2-1. The majority said the legislature’s lines depend too heavily on the proportion of voters in each district who are Latino. The dissent said the lines were drawn for partisan reasons (which is permitted). But the majority said that, although it is true the motivation was partisan, the means still matter, and the means were to draw districts manipulating the number of members of ethnic groups. The case is especially complicated because the ruling concerns the 2011 districts. The 2011 districts were altered somewhat by a new plan in 2013, but the majority said the case is not moot because the principles used in the 2011 districting need to be evaluated because they are likely to recur, unless it is determined that such means are either unconstitutional or violate the Voting Rights Act.

See this story about the Texas decision. Thanks to Rick Hasen for news about the Texas decision, which came down in the evening.

This Metro article about the special Pennsylvania legislature election says that even though Cheri Honkala, Green Party nominee, is a write-in candidate, she could still win. No Democrat is on the ballot either.

Guam has a law that says Guam residents who became citizens by a particular act of Congress in 1950, and their descendants, are entitled to register to vote in any future plebiscite on the future political status of Guam. This special list of registered voters is separate from the general list. The law also says no such plebiscite will be held until a large percentage of eligible residents actually register for this election.

A resident of Guam who doesn’t meet the qualifications for the special list sued in U.S. District Court in 2011, seeking to invalidate the special registration list. Guam tried to defend the law by saying the lawsuit isn’t ripe, because the proportion of eligible people who have actually signed up for the special list is far too low, and therefore any such future election, and future use of the special registration list, is in the far future.

The U.S. District Court initially agreed with the Guam government, but then the Ninth Circuit ruled the case is ripe, and sent it back. On March 8, the U.S. District Court struck down the law setting up the special registration list. The case is Davis v Guam Election Commission, 1:11cv-35. The basis for the decision is the Fifteenth Amendment, which does not permit any voting restriction based on race. Approximately 99% of the Guam residents who gained citizenship by a special act of Congress in 1950 were native Chamorros, and the law, by limiting the special registration list to those individuals and their descendants, was found by the court to be a racial test.